Well, he did produce OpenBSD, which could be seen as constructive criticism in a sense (instead of just complaining, build something). But yeah, if you mean constructively criticizing things in text, that's not really his strong point.
Huh, I didn't realize that. Looks like, for large companies at least (there are some discounts for individual inventors), the fees break down roughly like this:
- Filing/search/examination fees: $1600
- Issuance of an approved patent: $1780
- Maintenance of an approved patent over its full lifespan: $12,600
So basically the USPTO gets $1600 if the patent is rejected, or $15,980 if it's approved.
Two of them actually did miss, and are now orbiting the sun in deep space. The other two didn't get far enough to miss.
Ranger 1 and 2 were botched launches, which barely made it into space into unstable low-earth orbits, from which they burned up on reentry shortly thereafter.
Ranger 3 did in fact miss the moon. It successfully launched to high-earth orbit, and then successfully boosted out of high-earth orbit towards the moon. But not quite towards the moon enough. It missed the moon by 22,000 miles and flew past it into deep space.
Ranger 4 was the first successful mission. And then Ranger 5 missed again, this time by a much smaller amount, only 450 miles. The exit from high-earth orbit towards the moon appears to have been reasonably good this time, and any minor trajectory errors were supposed to be fixed in a mid-course corrective burn. But the craft lost power after exiting earth orbit, so was unable to make the mid-course correction, causing it to miss.
More info in the usual place.
Nitpick: the name is Luna-9.
The first landing of any kind (a crash landing), was the Soviet Luna-2 in 1959. The U.S. then sent a series of crash-impact spacecraft in the early 1960s, the Ranger series, whose goal was to take photos during the final descent, along with testing out systems. Five of the nine Ranger missions successfully impacted the moon, and three of them managed to send back photos.
Then as you note, Luna-9 was the first non-crash landing, in 1966.
Mindfuck is also an actual interpreter for an actual programming language. It may not be the most useful programming language, but it is one. The interpreter's source code is what's hosted on Github: it's code, in a code repository, pretty much the kind of thing GitHub intends to host. C+= was not a language implementation, not even an implementation of a parody language.
But it does illustrate the limits of Github's commitment to freedom and openness
Considering their platform is mainly closed-source, I'm not sure this is the first place we've spotted that they are not fully committed to freedom and openness. They're a business that sells project hosting space, using the free accounts as a marketing & onboarding tool, not some kind of free-culture advocacy group.
Yeah, the concise answer to the question is, "because the data is there, and they can get it".
Intelligence agencies piggy-backing on private-sector tracking is nothing new, either. Some of the earlier U.S. 4th-amendment cases came out of intelligence agencies getting access to people's telephone records. They also get information from banks, credit-card companies, and all sorts of other such compilers of private dossiers. If they want, they can probably get access to what food you eat, too, thanks to supermarkets compiling purchase profiles via scans of the club-card barcodes.
That doesn't really make them a defense contractor; sharing some data with the NSA doesn't involve the whole procurement game that is the mainstay of defense contracting.
Will they maintain its current (quite lucrative) military business? I can almost see Google becoming a defense contractor, and it would be one way of addressing their "we need revenue streams other than search ads" issue, which has been their main risk on the financial side for years.
But defense contracting would be a bit of a shift in how they like to do business, and I'm not sure a positive one. Alternately, they could just repurpose the acquired tech and expertise towards Google's own robotics projects, and dump the military clients. That would be leaving quite a bit of money and existing business on the table, though, not to mention possibly annoying some politically powerful folks.
Pol Pot really only controlled Cambodia for about 4 years, though, not a particularly lengthy reign. The rest of the time he was head of the Khmer Rouge, before 1975 and after 1979, they were a guerrilla group not actually in control of the country.
The consolation is that few excessively ruthless leaders tend to rule for very long.
I guess it depends on your definitions of both "long" and "excessively", but the 20th century had a pretty good number. Stalin might be the best example, in power for around 30 years. And Francisco Franco was in power for nearly 40 years.
Destruction of public infrastructure is not only not a separate charge in the UK, there is even a whole party that advocates for it!
people are paying too much for it on the open market
Typical knee-jerk Cobalt60-skepticism here on Slashdot. Everyone wants to compare it to tulip mania and yell "bubble", and won't believe that the recent price run-up is because people are genuinely finding it useful as a non-state-controlled currency. USD's days are numbered; in the future, coins glow blue.
Multithreaded FU too, buddy